Talk:Anti-Semitism (archive 1)

This is an archive of older discussions from Talk:Anti-Semitism

---

While I agree that some members of the Jewish community have labelled Neturei Karta antisemitic, in many instances it was part of the highly charged rhetoric that often infuses internal Jewish debate. Furthermore, even Neturei Karta recognizes that Jews have a right to statehood. The debate is when and how such a state should come into being and the precise nature of the state once it does (see Va-Yoel Moshe for instance, which clarified the Satmar hasidic position on Zionism). Furthermore, they do not deny that other Jews are not Jews: they claim that their behavior is heretical. Satmar and Neturei Karta would certainly respond differently to a Reform Jew and a Christian--one is a heretic and the other is a Gentile, so one must keep kosher, not work on Shabbat, etc., while the other has no such obligation. I would keep Neturei Karta out of the discussion of anti-Semitism. Danny

The Neturei Karta teach hateful things about Jews other than themselves. They teach that all Jews are literally releasing demonic forces within the land of Israel, and are therefore on the side of evil incarnate, and that they thus deserved the be slaughtered by the Nazis. If we do not call this hatespeech "antisemitic", then we must say that the Nazis and Neo-Nazis are also not antisemitic. RK

I would certaintly class Nazis, Neo-Nazis, and the KKK as anti-Semitic. (I do not know enough about Hamas to judge if they are anti-Semitic or not.) But they are very different from Neturei Karta. You say Neturei Karta "do teach other equally hateful things about all Jews". Since they are Jews, does it follow they teach these things about themselves? If they are saying these things about themselves also, it follows the things they say aren't hateful. But if they are not saying these things about themselves, it follows that they are not saying these things about all Jews, only some. Either way, they are not saying anything anti-Semitic; of course they aren't, because they are Jews, and a Jewish anti-Semite is an oxymoron. -- Simon J Kissane

No, they don't teach hatred of themselves - but they do teach hatred of all other Jews in the world. RK

They don't teach hatred of Jews. They (according to you -- as I said I don't exactly know) teach hatred of other Jews; but they can't be antisemites because they are Jews. To take a different example: suppose some guy, let's call him Jack, is a Protestant and he hates Catholics. Now it is true that he is anti-Catholic, but he isn't anti-Christian because he is a Christian. Or another example: Ahmed is a Sunni and he hates Shi'a. Now it is true he is anti-Shi'a, but he is not anti-Muslim because he is a Muslim. In the same way, Neturei Karta may well be anti-Reform Judaism, anti-Masorti, anti-Modern Orthodox, and anti heaps of other Jewish groups as well, but that doesn't make them antisemitic any more than Jack hating Catholics makes him anti-Christian or Ahmed hating Shi'a makes him anti-Muslim. -- SJK

Do they publish cartoons showing Jews with long noses? Do they say Hitler was a hero and the Holocaust never happened? They don't. They do none of these things. Therefore they are not anti-Semitic. "Jewish anti-Semtitism" is an invention of intra-Jewish propaganda, plain and simple. -- SJK.

I have absolutely nothing against Jews as a religion or an ethnic group. I do disagree with many of Israel's policies, and disagree with Zionism; but my reasons for doing so are not anti-Semitic at all. You seem to almost want to redefine anti-Semitism to mean "anyone who disagrees with me". I not only find that sort of rhetoric very offensive to myself, I also think it shows disrespect to the victims of real anti-Semitism. -- Simon J Kissane

I disagree. Fringe groups exist in all communities, after all. There are some Christian extremist groups that promote virulent hatred against most Christians, except (of course) themselves. Same thing happens in other religions as well. Even mainstream Orthodox Jews from the rabbinical Council of America have now denounced the Neturei Karta as antisemitic. RK

Orthodox rabbi denounces Neturei Karta as anti-Semitic (http://www.ou.org/torah/grossman/2000/031100.htm)

---

As I said above, "ultra-Orthodox antisemitism" does not exist. Ultra-Orthodox are Jews, Jews cannot be anti-Semites, therefore there is no such thing as ultra-Orthodox antisemitism. To say this isn't to be antisemitic, it is to apply simple logic and common sense. Claiming that some ultra-Orthodox groups are antisemitic is simply propaganda. I am not denying the existence of antisemitism. Plenty of it exists in the world. All I am denying is that there are Jewish antisemites. A Jewish antisemite is like a black white supremacist -- they simply can't exist. SJK

Anyone who claims that black racists don't exists has never lived in the black community. There are a small number of self-hating black people, and the rest of the black community is not at all happy about this. And I am not talking about black Republicans, who some ultra-liberal black extremists pretend are anti-black (they are not, of course.) Rather, I am talking about black people who really don't like other black people. Just because they shouldn't exist doesn't mean that they don't exist. RK

If Neteuri Karta hate all other Jews (which I somewhat doubt, but I will take your word for it for the sake of the argument), they are still not anti-Semites, because they are Jews. They both consider themselves Jews, and they are generally recognized to be Jews. Therefore they cannot be antisemites. Plenty of other people can be and are antisemites. But for a Jew it is impossible to be an antisemite. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this simple piece of common sense. SJK

In Sudan IIRC its a case of Arabs enslaving blacks, not blacks enslaving each other -- but even if it isn't in that case, it's true that blacks have enslaved each other plenty of times before in history. But that isn't racism. How can it be possibly racist for a black person to enslave another black person? Immoral, yes; but racist, no. SJK

RK, have you ever considered that someone might disagree equally with policies that Israel has and policies that other countries have, yet publicly put most emphasis on Israeli misdeeds because of considerations of political relavance. The Middle East Conflict is a topic of constant interest in international politics. And one might simply evaluate that, looking at the evidence, Israel at present is more in the wrong than the Arabs are. Whether one is right or wrong to think that, it need not in any way be motivated by anti-Semitism. -- SJK

I disagree; I still hold that there are are black racists, there are self-hating homoseuxals, and there are some anti-Semitic ultra-Orthodox Jews. Police have documented attacks on homosexuals by men who have later turned out to have latent homosexual tendencies. Similarly, in Israel and America hatespeech is published against all Jews on the planet, by certain ultra-Orthodox sects. (The propagators of the hatred, of course, somehow find a way not to target themselves). RK

---

SJK is saying that by definition a person cannot practice racism towards other members of his ethnic group.

But obviously a person can do this! Daniel C. Boyer

Police reports prove this wrong. We are trying to describe the real world, not what we wish the world would be look. RK

If racism means to view some other group of people as inferior to your own because of their race, it would be impossible to do this if you were actually a member of this racial group. Unless racism is defined differently then I suppose that what RK is suggesting is a contradiction. -- sodium

Hating Jews isn't racism because Judaism isn't a race. Similarly, hating homosexuals isn't racism, because homosexuals aren't a race. Third, anyone who does such things developes elaborate psychological defense mechanisms to rationalise why they themselves don't fall into the category that they are attacking. I thunk you are describing what you think ought to exist, rather than what does exist. RK

---

No, you have missed the point entirely...

I don't believe I have missed the point. I was trying to sum up SJKs position: "All I am denying is that there are Jewish antisemites."

First off, hating Jews isn't racism because Judaism isn't a race. Similarly, hating homosexuals isn't racism, because homosexuals aren't a race

Actually Judaism is a race as well as a religion, stated on the main Anti-Semitism page. This is irrelevant anyway, broadly I was talking about any group which finds any other group inferior because of some attribute.

Third...

Where was the second point :-)?

..., you totally misunderstand the psychology of the people who do such things

SJK was simply arguing over the *definition* of antisemitism. Antisemites claim Jews are inferior because of their race/religion. You have to be from another race/religion to do this - it is impossible to find yourself inferior. Inferior to what? Are you saying that some Jews hate the rest of the jewish community? This would undoubtedly be a bad thing, but it is not antisemitism. -- sodium

I see what you mean, but this is not the sole definition of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is hatred of Jewish people, period. There are many who hate Jews only because of their beliefs and practices, and not because of their ethnicity. These people don't argue that Jews are inherently inferior in a genetic or spritual sense; they hate something about Jewish people; something which may be real, such as their resistence to assimilation, or ability to gain good jobs. Or they may believe something which is imaginary, such as the belief that Jews are greedy and spiteful. RK

---

I'm sure a lot of people would still consider a Jew hating (or believing inferior) his own race to be antisemitic or racist, but I would call that some form of self-loathing, since at least its not based on a superiority complex. And yes, it does exist.

---

I moved the following sentence down here because it is to terse: Paul taught that the Jews were no longer in a special relationship with God, and that in God's eyes only Christians were the true offspring of Abraham.

Paul gives a detailed account in Romans 10 and 11. Can somebody give a more accurate summary, please? -- Di Stroppo

To be precise: I'm just saying that the cited sentence does not give an account of what Paul is teaching and that somebody should come up with a better summary. -- Di Stroppo

An article on anti-semitism is not, I think, the place to detail a complex Christian theology. But for present purposes (i.e. citing some of the verses that illustrate this particular pointand have been used to legitimize and motivate anti-semitism), I'd think II Corinthians 5-10 and Galetians 2: 14-16 would suffice -- and Hebrews 8: 13: "In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." -- SR

---

I would like to suggest we use the spelling "antisemitism" rather than "anti-Semitism". Not only is it easier to type (and I say it looks nicer too), but it is preferred by a several Jewish authors on the grounds that it discourages somewhat silly arguments like "Arabs are Semites too!", which although maybe etymologically correct don't fit with how the word is actually used. Comments? -- SJK

Which is the preferred spelling: anti-semitism or anti-Semitism? I think anti-Semitism is much more appropriate, but we have many examples of both.

It doesn't make much difference. I personally prefer anti-semitism because I like lowercase letters, but I wouldn't go out of my way to spell-check a whole article to make it conform.

---

As far as I understand the issue, basing on the Quran the Islamic faith generally divides the world into 2 parts: (1) dar al-Islam (dwelling of Islam) and (2) dar al-harb (dwelling of the sword, war). This vision is common, as far as I understand, to all branches of Islam, although for natural reasons, it is endorsed more thoroughly among the militant Islamists, in particular the Wahhabi division of Islam, which is predominant in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States (Bin-Laden belongs to this school), and the Shi'ite islam practiced in Iran (and endorsed by its proxy Hizballah). Naturally, this view is also shared by the fundamentalist organizations (Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad) in the Palestinian Authority (and indeed to an extent, by any Muslim close enough to the religion). It takes only to attend to Arafat's own words comparing his Oslo Accords with the peace Muhammad made (and unilaterally broke) with the Kuraish tribe to understand the deep religious motives in the Arab hate towards Jews and Israel. --Uriyan

---

There is little or no debate in the Jewish community. Even Europeans (who are much more anti-Semitic than Americans) admit that its probably wrong to say that Jews and Jews alone are forbidden from having a land of their own.

You yourself said that the Neturei Karta are anti-Zionist and Jewish. Whether you consider them anti-Semitic or not, that means that there is debate within the Jewish community. And, by the way, when you describe anti-Zionism as saying the Jews and Jews alone should have no land, you are assuming that everyone is in favor of racial or religious nation-states. One may also be anti-Zionist by being opposed to these in general, right?

As I see Neturei Karta, they are an extremely marginal segment of the Jewish public, both from the point of view of sheer numbers and that of their social status in the general Jewish community. Because of that, the fact that they have a different opinion than most of the community does not qualify as a debate that goes on inside it. In regard to the second point, being anti-Zionist today (that is, insisting that Israel's existence as such must be stopped), should be accompanied with denying the right of Palestinians for an indepentent state and combined with some sort of a solution how to prevent Arabs from fulfilling their promise of throwing 5 million Israeli Jews to the sea, or otherwise it's either hipocrisy or anti-Semitism of genocidal proportions. --Uriyan

Someone writes "You yourself said that the Neturei Karta are anti-Zionist and Jewish. Whether you consider them anti-Semitic or not, that means that there is debate within the Jewish community." My response: No, it means no such thing! Consider: There are a tiny, insignifcant percent of black people out there who somehow have becom racist, and who hate blacks, call them "niggers", and slander all other blacks in hateful terms. Would any sane person then conclude that "there is debate within the black community" whether blacks are dumb niggers to be despised? No! No such debate in the black community exists. The simply fact of the matter is that in every large group, you can always find a insignificant, tiny fringe group that hurls hatespeech at other members of the group. This doesn't prove anything except that self-hatred is an interesting psychological phenomenon to study. RK

RK, while I do not like what Neturei Karta says, there is a certain religious legitimacy to their opinions, which were accepted by the bulk of Orthodox Jewry till 1938. They are just hold-overs. In that case, condemning them as anti-Semitic is rather harsh. See, for instance, VaYoel Moshe on the three oaths. Furthermore, they do not hate Jews. They believe that Jews have abandoned their religion, and respond in a fervent manner. Kanaim pog'im bo, you know. Danny

---

Maybe it will help to have a specific entry on Neturei Karta to complement the general one on Anti-Semitism.

---

I prefer to use the term Arab in preference to the term Palestinian wherever possible. Everyone knows who the Arabs are. It's not as easy to determine who a "Palestinian" is. Sometimes there has arisen controversy over this, and the 'pedia is better off not taking sides in any controversy. One way to sidestep the issue, using neutral terminology, is to refer to "Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza say X", or "supporters of the Islamic ideal of a Palestinian state say Y". Ed Poor, Friday, June 21, 2002

When it comes to the Israeli-Arab conflict, or anti-Semitism, who is confused about the word "Palestinian"? When people see this word on TV, the radio, the Internet or in print media, everyone knows who it refers to: Palestinian Arabs. Who else do people think it now refers to? Sure, in the past the word "palestinian" had a different meaning, but in modern every day conversation it now carries a specific meaning: Palestinian Arabs. In any case, Arabs don't all have the same government, beliefs, or tactics, and it frequently is necessary to use the terms Palestinian, Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese, etc, in order to describe who is holding a iven position. However, I totally agree with you that sometimes people use the term "Palestinian" when "Arab" should be used, and vice-versa, and that we should all be careful about using the word most fitting for the context. RK

---

Thanks to Uriyan and RK for clearing up the definition of "Palestinian". I might take a crack at refactoring the new info I got thereby, into the beginnings of an article like Palestine, Palestinian or Palestinian homeland. Ed Poor

I would be careful with that, Ed. Once again, the problem seems to be that you want definitions with sharp boundaries: i.e., this falls within the definition; this does not. The problem is, especially with such a contentious issue as what defines a Palestinian, is that the boundaries are not so clear at all. In fact, that is what all the contention is about. Danny

Thanks for the warning; I will heed it. As a software engineer, I spend the bulk of my professional life devising tests that distinguish between various categories: there IS or IS NOT enough money in the account, etc. Perhaps it is a vain hope that such thinking might apply to politics. Ed Poor, Monday, June 24, 2002

---

Previously I had written this statement "Are you asking why this theology is considered anti-Semitism by Jews? An analogy - imagine that a new religion was created, and in it people around the world claimed that God no longer loves Christians, but that God only loves the members of the new Church of Stan; further, they teach that 'Stanians' are now the new Christians, and that all the old Chirstians will be damned unless they convert to Stanism. I think that most people would argree that such a hypothetical action is anti-Christian, yet this is what Paul and his followers did to the Jews." I was trying to use a made-up name. To my surprise, there was a recent comment about this; evidently someone has created a religion is called Stanism!

Frater Parvise writes "STAN does NOT claim that Christians will be damned unless they convert; as STAN is all there is, including ALL the religions of the world, Christians are already Stanists. See the New Church of STAN doctrine at http://www.pantribe.net. [Frater Parvise]

---

"Anti-Semitism is hostility or violence toward people of Jewish ancestry. Although sometimes confused for hatred of all Semites?, The word "anti-Semitism" means specifically the hatred of Jews, and has never been used otherwise. "

I'm changing this for two reasons,

1) It is logically unneccassary, if it "has never been used otherwise" then there is no need for that statement as no one would think otherwise. However if it is used differently (even in peoples' heads) the statement is wrong.

I think you are confused. Jewish people and most Christians never use the term "anti-semite" to mean anything other than hatred of Jews. The Germans who invented and popularized this word also never used this word to mean anything different. However - and this is the point you have missed - anti-semitic people themselves deliberately mis-use this word, to try and confuse the issue. That deliberate misuse is what the entry is trying to clarify. The attempt at change confuses the issue further. RK

It has been used, I agree that 95% percent of the time that it is used to indicate anti-jewish activity, but there are a minority of users who do legitimately use it to represent opposition to semetic culture as a whole.

The changes you have made are signifcantly not NPOV

2) It is used to mean people who are against speakers of semitic languages (including arabic), for instance in Gary Geddes book Flying Blind (1998). Imran

No, the term anti-semite does not, and has never meant, hatred of those people who speak semitic-derived languages. That's just silly. People just don't use the word to mean this! Just because one lone author mistakenly uses this word does not constitute rewriting an encyclopaedia entry. If that were any measure of anything, we'd have to say that no words have any set meaning, because just about every word is used by a tiny number of people in a sense that it was never meant to be used. RK

That was just the first example that came to hand, another to hand is the in the letters section of "The Independent" (July 26th) (London) , the "Culture" section of the "Sunday Times" (June 30th) (London) , page 15 of The Guardian (June 19th) (London), page 8 of the "Morning Star" (June 1st).

The fact that some people (perhaps mistakingly) used the term for something else, does not make you egligible to change its meaning. That's a coverup, and coverups are definitely not NPOV. --Uri

How many people have to "mistakenly" use it for it to become legitimate, those four articles I've mentioned come from a wide spread of British newspapers, all from the last two months. To deny the words existance (note that the article specifically says the word is never used in that sense) isn't NPOV.

I've never even heard that the issue is a coverup, and searching the internet I can't find any sources to indicate it. So could you point some out ?